On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Sasha Khapyorsky <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09:48 Thu 31 Dec , Hal Rosenstock wrote: >> >> I thought this was only done when these issues are actually found and >> in general we are relying on compliance. > > OpenSM can rely on compliance in many cases, but it cannot crash (or > become nonoperational in any other way) relying on compliance.
I think that's fine as a general principle but isn't practical. There are many cases where OpenSM relies on SMA/PMA/SA client compliance (without such checking/overhead). >> Is there a specific known >> issue here ? >> >> If we are worrying about this as a general principle, there are more >> places to bullet proof like this. > > Likely so and it would be good to fix all of them. Have you done a code review/inspection for such cases ? >> I am wondering about why the >> exception here. > > It is not exception. I think there are more unprotected cases than protected ones. -- Hal > I found this one, so fixed. > Sasha > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
